| Home |
| Archives |
| Subscribe |
| About Us |
| Contact Us |
| Links |
| Submissions |
| Our Founding Documents |
|
Declaration of Independence |
| Constitution |
| Bill of Rights |
| Amendments |
| Federalist Papers |
 |
The Right to NOT be Persecuted for being a Sheep DogBy Brent Smith July 10, 2017 We know the saying that there are wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs. Wolves are predators – thugs – criminals. Sheep are like most people, helpless should a wolf attack. Sheep dogs are the brave men and women who defend the sheep from the wolves. And the question always asked is, which are you?
Quite frequently I get emails regarding updates and stories from the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), because – ya know – I’m a 'gun nut' who carries a weapon.
Often the stories involve the Second Amendment - the right to own and carry a weapon – because that’s what “Keep and Bear Arms” means.
However, I recently received an email recounting a true story of a man - USCCA Member David Jackson, a sheep dog, “who was forced to use his firearm to defend his family, who quite frankly is the very reason he carries his gun in the first place.”
This got me thinking. Why is this even a story? It certainly shouldn’t be, except maybe one of congratulations to a man who defended himself, his family and all in his immediate circle of influence.
Here’s the USCCA recounting of the story.
It happened in South Carolina, where two armed thugs entered a local barbershop looking for easy targets (sheep) and fast cash.
Shortly after David sat down in one of the barber chairs, two masked men walked in, one with a shotgun and the other with a pistol. “Time slowed down for David, and the world got quiet as he watched the chaos erupt.”
“His girlfriend grabbed their children, pulling them in close as David pleaded with the robbers not to shoot for the sake of his kids who were watching in horror just a few feet away.”
The gunmen began demanding everyone “turn over their money and valuables.” The dirt bag holding the shotgun knocked the barber down and shoved the barrel up against his head.
It was at this moment, “David was convinced the armed thug would shoot the barber right then and there, with his 3 kids watching.” And it was at this moment when he had to “make a split second decision,” or it would be made for him.
And this is what the anti-gun pacifist group doesn’t seem to comprehend about a real life situation like this - a split-second is just that. It’s not a scripted scene from a movie where the thug announces his intentions ahead of time, giving the hero time to make a pithy comment and second guess any decision he might make.
To these fools, I would ask if they care to bet their lives on it, because that is what they’d be doing.
His decision was whether to “draw his firearm even though he was outnumbered 2 to 1?”
“David looked at his family - frozen in terror - and knew what he had to do.” One of the armed thugs began walking toward him. Mr. Jackson stopped the approaching gunman by directing him “towards his coat lying on a nearby seat to avoid being patted down.”
When the gunman turned to walk away, “David took his one opportunity to save his family. He drew his gun and fired. The wounded gunman fled out the back door, collapsing into a pool of red in the street. Startled, the second gunman fled, with David's next shot missing him by an inch, maybe two.”
In a sane world, it would have ended there. Instead, “the police brought him in for questioning.”
This is where it goes off the rails for me – and it should for you also. The cops brought HIM in for questioning. Why? Mr. Jackson just potentially saved the lives of his family and everyone in and outside that barbershop.
Police were on the scene. You question David there, get corroboration from witnesses and that is that. But of course that isn’t that.
“Upon arrival at the police station, David used his one phone call to contact the USCCA Critical Response Team. He was instantly connected with a team member who provided him with all of the resources and information he needed to get home to his family.”
“Needless to say, the USCCA helped ease David's nerves and walked him through the entire process step-by-step, making his experience as comfortable and painless as possible. David was not charged with any crime.”
Charged with a crime? What freaking crime would he be charged with – defending the innocent?
| ||||
 Brent Smith, "The Common Constitutionalist," offers not just conservative commentary and analysis, but a blend of politics, history, arts, science, and humor. Whoever said conservatives aren’t funny? Yeah, I know…most people. Brent is a contributing writer for numerous online publications. When he is not burning the midnight oil writing his insightful commentaries, he is raising his two teenage sons to be patriots and Conservatives.Visit Brent Smith's website at www.commonconstitutionalist.com
|